Blog relating to the American Presidency, specific American Presidents, and First Ladies. Posts by online college instructor Jennie Weber with additional posts by site founder Dr. Michael Lorenzen and Elementaryhistoryteacher.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Prohibition Presidential/Vice-Presidential Candidates

Do you think alcohol should be banned in the USA? Alcohol has been banned successfully in many Muslim nations but attempts at limiting it elsewhere have failed rather spectacularly. However, one of America's oldest political parties is still trying to get voters to go for it.

According to Wikipedia, "The Prohibition Party is a political party in the United States best known for its historic opposition to the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages. The Party was an integral part of the temperance movement and, while never one of the nation's leading parties, it was an important force in US politics in the late 19th century and the early years of the 20th century. The party has declined dramatically since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. Today, it advocates a variety of socially conservative causes."

To give it credit, the party was a major player in Presidential elections for a time. However, the two major parties took up prohibition advocacy and stole most of the support the party was receiving. After it was obvious that banning alcohol did not work, the Prohibition Party spiraled into the state of virtual obscurity it has today.

Unless Islamic Law is every close to being voted (or legislated) into existence in the USA, it is safe to say that the only benefit to being on a Prohibition Party ticket is almost automatic entry into Wikipedia as a notable person worthy of an article. Regardless, even if the modern party is irrelevant, historically it played an important role in American history and is worth remembering.

4 comments:

After reading this I was looking for a book about Al Capone and the growth of the Chicago crime syndicates that I read many years ago. Although I cannot find the book, I remember that it credited Prohibition with the growth of organized crime. Speakeasies did exist to evade tax and blue laws, but they began to flourish under prohibition. Add gambling, prostitution, and the distribution of goods, and organized crime grew by leaps and bounds.

Make it illegal and those who want to partake will do so, whether it is for the thrill or even altruistic reasons. Look at the new discussion between college deans, presidents, and chancellors about lowering the drinking age back to 18. They have seen evidence of an increase in binge drinking since the drinking age was increased in 1984.

My bottom line is don't legislate morality. What you think may be immoral does not mean I think it is immoral. Although I do not drink, that is my decision. It is not my place to impose my feelings on these things on you. It is not my business whether you drink and it's not your business if I drink.

However, "My bottom line is don't legislate morality. What you think may be immoral does not mean I think it is immoral" takes it a bit too far.

It is OK to legislate morality. That is why we have laws against murder, drunk driving, rape, etc. The question is not whether to legislate morality (we must) but which moral activities should be legislated.

Legislating against what we consider capital crimes protects violations of another's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. In that case, it is not legislating morality but protecting someone else's freedom. Legislating against the behavior consumption of alcohol or gambling is not trying to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it is apply morality on those that would choose to partake in those activities.

"Legislating against what we consider capital crimes protects violations of another's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. In that case, it is not legislating morality but protecting someone else's freedom."

Which are all at their core moral issues. Which is why something like abortion is so tough. What is more just, the right of the unborn to live or the right of the mother to make a choice? Outside of true patisians, we can all see how this can get murky.

Even the alcohol issue infringes on others. Drunks have a negative impact on another's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness when you have to deal with a drunk.

I agree people have the right to drink, gamble, and should have the right to some other morally questionable activities even if the may harm others.

However, almost all laws are an attempt to legislate morals such as "though shall not kill", "though shall not steal", "though shall not cheat the government out of tax money", etc.

Morality has always been legislated and always will be. The question is, which issues of morality should be legislated? That is where the debate is just and I respect the prohibisionist even if I disagree with them.